M/S. SIZE CONTROL GAUGES AND TOOLS PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 6,, PUNE

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1778 To 1782/Pun/2019 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08 To 2011-12 M/S. Size Control Gauges & Tools Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.100/101, Tiny Industries Co-Op. Estate Ltd., Pisoli Road, Kondhwa(Bk), Pune – 411 048. .......अपऩलधथी / Appellant Pan : Aaccs3670F

section 143(2) after filing the return of income which had rendered the Assessment Order bad in law liable to be set aside. 3. The CIT(A) erred in not deleting the disallowance of Rs.20,31,158/- out of purchases though the purchases were fully verifiable and the payments were made through bank. 4. Without prejudice to Ground

M/S. SIZE CONTROL GAUGES AND TOOLS PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 6,, PUNE

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1778 To 1782/Pun/2019 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08 To 2011-12 M/S. Size Control Gauges & Tools Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.100/101, Tiny Industries Co-Op. Estate Ltd., Pisoli Road, Kondhwa(Bk), Pune – 411 048. .......अपऩलधथी / Appellant Pan : Aaccs3670F

section 143(2) after filing the return of income which had rendered the Assessment Order bad in law liable to be set aside. 3. The CIT(A) erred in not deleting the disallowance of Rs.20,31,158/- out of purchases though the purchases were fully verifiable and the payments were made through bank. 4. Without prejudice to Ground

M/S. SIZE CONTROL GAUGES AND TOOLS PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 6,, PUNE

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1778 To 1782/Pun/2019 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08 To 2011-12 M/S. Size Control Gauges & Tools Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.100/101, Tiny Industries Co-Op. Estate Ltd., Pisoli Road, Kondhwa(Bk), Pune – 411 048. .......अपऩलधथी / Appellant Pan : Aaccs3670F

section 143(2) after filing the return of income which had rendered the Assessment Order bad in law liable to be set aside. 3. The CIT(A) erred in not deleting the disallowance of Rs.20,31,158/- out of purchases though the purchases were fully verifiable and the payments were made through bank. 4. Without prejudice to Ground

M/S. SIZE CONTROL GAUGES AND TOOLS PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 6,, PUNE

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1778 To 1782/Pun/2019 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08 To 2011-12 M/S. Size Control Gauges & Tools Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.100/101, Tiny Industries Co-Op. Estate Ltd., Pisoli Road, Kondhwa(Bk), Pune – 411 048. .......अपऩलधथी / Appellant Pan : Aaccs3670F

section 143(2) after filing the return of income which had rendered the Assessment Order bad in law liable to be set aside. 3. The CIT(A) erred in not deleting the disallowance of Rs.20,31,158/- out of purchases though the purchases were fully verifiable and the payments were made through bank. 4. Without prejudice to Ground

M/S. SIZE CONTROL GAUGES AND TOOLS PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 6,, PUNE

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1778 To 1782/Pun/2019 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08 To 2011-12 M/S. Size Control Gauges & Tools Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.100/101, Tiny Industries Co-Op. Estate Ltd., Pisoli Road, Kondhwa(Bk), Pune – 411 048. .......अपऩलधथी / Appellant Pan : Aaccs3670F

section 143(2) after filing the return of income which had rendered the Assessment Order bad in law liable to be set aside. 3. The CIT(A) erred in not deleting the disallowance of Rs.20,31,158/- out of purchases though the purchases were fully verifiable and the payments were made through bank. 4. Without prejudice to Ground

YOGESH GOSAVI,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 2305/Pun/2016 िनधा$रण वष$ / Assessment Year : 2010-11

section 41(1) of the ITA, 1961. Learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating apparent conflict in the said two situations. 2 Mr. Yogesh Gosavi 2. Learned CIT(A) and the learned AD Ward 1(2), Nashik erred in law and on facts in treating the purchases of Rs. 1.06 CR as bogus without appreciating the reasonable evidences such

INCOME-TAX OFFICER vs. M/S. DEBROS POLYMER PRODUCT,, NASHIK

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the cross objections filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

73,908 18.13% 22.58% 2.83% 7.29% The ld. AR pointed that the GP declared by the assessee varied between 17% to 18% and NP declared by the assessee ranged between 2.82% to 2.97% for the assessment years under appeals. Whereas, after making disallowance of purchases from alleged Hawala dealers the GP increased to 51% in assessment year

INCOME-TAX OFFICER vs. M/S. DEBROS POLYMER PRODUCT,, NASHIK

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the cross objections filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

73,908 18.13% 22.58% 2.83% 7.29% The ld. AR pointed that the GP declared by the assessee varied between 17% to 18% and NP declared by the assessee ranged between 2.82% to 2.97% for the assessment years under appeals. Whereas, after making disallowance of purchases from alleged Hawala dealers the GP increased to 51% in assessment year

INCOME-TAX OFFICER vs. M/S. DEBROS POLYMER PRODUCT,, NASHIK

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the cross objections filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

73,908 18.13% 22.58% 2.83% 7.29% The ld. AR pointed that the GP declared by the assessee varied between 17% to 18% and NP declared by the assessee ranged between 2.82% to 2.97% for the assessment years under appeals. Whereas, after making disallowance of purchases from alleged Hawala dealers the GP increased to 51% in assessment year

ANITA SANJAY AGRAWAL,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER ,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.2622 To 2624/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2011-12

bogus purchases. The said letter dated 14.10.2014 is placed at pages 71 and 72 of Paper Book. The assessee vide para 6 of the said letter had requested the Assessing Officer to provide copy of affidavit of the so-called hawala dealer and actual response or information received from the Sales Tax Department, which is mentioned in the reasons recorded

SHRAWAN KESHAVLAL AGRAWAL HUF,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER ,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.2622 To 2624/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2011-12

bogus purchases. The said letter dated 14.10.2014 is placed at pages 71 and 72 of Paper Book. The assessee vide para 6 of the said letter had requested the Assessing Officer to provide copy of affidavit of the so-called hawala dealer and actual response or information received from the Sales Tax Department, which is mentioned in the reasons recorded

SANJAY SHRAWAN AGRAWAL HUF,,NASHIK vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.2622 To 2624/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2011-12

bogus purchases. The said letter dated 14.10.2014 is placed at pages 71 and 72 of Paper Book. The assessee vide para 6 of the said letter had requested the Assessing Officer to provide copy of affidavit of the so-called hawala dealer and actual response or information received from the Sales Tax Department, which is mentioned in the reasons recorded

ANITA SANJAY AGRAWAL,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER ,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.2622 To 2624/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2011-12

bogus purchases. The said letter dated 14.10.2014 is placed at pages 71 and 72 of Paper Book. The assessee vide para 6 of the said letter had requested the Assessing Officer to provide copy of affidavit of the so-called hawala dealer and actual response or information received from the Sales Tax Department, which is mentioned in the reasons recorded

SANJAY SHRAWAN AGRAWAL HUF,,NASHIK vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.2622 To 2624/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2011-12

bogus purchases. The said letter dated 14.10.2014 is placed at pages 71 and 72 of Paper Book. The assessee vide para 6 of the said letter had requested the Assessing Officer to provide copy of affidavit of the so-called hawala dealer and actual response or information received from the Sales Tax Department, which is mentioned in the reasons recorded

TRIMURTI FURNANCE PRIVATE LIMITED,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER ,, NASHIK

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.2622 To 2624/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2011-12

bogus purchases. The said letter dated 14.10.2014 is placed at pages 71 and 72 of Paper Book. The assessee vide para 6 of the said letter had requested the Assessing Officer to provide copy of affidavit of the so-called hawala dealer and actual response or information received from the Sales Tax Department, which is mentioned in the reasons recorded

ANITA SANJAY AGRAWAL,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER ,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.2622 To 2624/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2011-12

bogus purchases. The said letter dated 14.10.2014 is placed at pages 71 and 72 of Paper Book. The assessee vide para 6 of the said letter had requested the Assessing Officer to provide copy of affidavit of the so-called hawala dealer and actual response or information received from the Sales Tax Department, which is mentioned in the reasons recorded

TRIMURTI FURNANCE PRIVATE LIMITED,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER ,, NASHIK

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.2622 To 2624/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2011-12

bogus purchases. The said letter dated 14.10.2014 is placed at pages 71 and 72 of Paper Book. The assessee vide para 6 of the said letter had requested the Assessing Officer to provide copy of affidavit of the so-called hawala dealer and actual response or information received from the Sales Tax Department, which is mentioned in the reasons recorded

TRIMURTI FURNANCE PRIVATE LIMITED,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER ,, NASHIK

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.2622 To 2624/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2011-12

bogus purchases. The said letter dated 14.10.2014 is placed at pages 71 and 72 of Paper Book. The assessee vide para 6 of the said letter had requested the Assessing Officer to provide copy of affidavit of the so-called hawala dealer and actual response or information received from the Sales Tax Department, which is mentioned in the reasons recorded